Letter: Human Mistakes are Inevitable

I urge anyone who has not seen Ellis Glickman’s April 18 letter “In Defense of Jeff Byers” to read it carefully. Glickman, a Jewish student and member of Prof. Jeffrey Byers’s CHEM 0103 class, agrees that the question about poison gas on a recent exam was offensive, but says, “To call the question harmful is more dangerous than the question itself could ever be.” I think this is the essence of the issue. The uproar over news of this now-infamous question is vastly out of proportion to its importance.  The instructor certainly used poor judgment in including it, but there is no proof or even serious suggestion of hostile intent on his part. The campus will move on to new issues, but the injury to Prof. Byers may be very long-lasting.

For writing this question, Prof. Byers has been all but branded an anti-Semite and Holocaust trivializer and (it appears) forced to take a leave. He has been rebuked by the president in an all-campus email, something unprecedented in my time at the College. The story has made local public radio and is likely to go farther.  As Glickman notes, the Holocaust was real and the gas was used. We must never forget that.  But beyond  causing understandable short-lived shock and discomfort, did the exam question do  enough damage to justify the flood of condemnation?  Exactly who was harmed, how and to what extent?  We should demand specific, convincing answers before rejecting Prof. Byers’s prompt apology as insufficient and virtually expelling him from the community. If we retaliate so furiously for an ill-considered but non-malicious action, what would we do if a faculty member really were shown to be an anti-Semite, Holocaust trivializer, or a racist who has harmed a student in some more serious way?  

The College as an institution and, probably, most faculty, staff and students highly value and work to promote diversity, inclusivity, sensitivity and a climate of safety, respect and support.  Most of us are probably mindful of what we say and write, striving to recognize and overcome our own prejudices and trying to avoid gratuitously offending others. But the prevailing attitude that any slip-up, however unintentional, any presentation by an objectionable speaker, or any uncomfortable classroom experience threatens some students and indicates that they are unwelcome or not valued constrains the spirit of free inquiry, expression and debate which is vital to a rich academic life. Trying to shield students from any emotional distress--encouraging them to feel entitled to such protection—does not help them prepare for life in the less indulgent “outside world,” where they will not find constant personal support and where we hope they will focus outward on the myriad enormous problems facing our planet.

Human mistakes and shortcomings are inevitable. We should attempt to correct them without personal condemnation, without dwelling on them longer than necessary and with recognition of good intentions. Surely it would be better to cultivate our proclaimed values by good example, discussion and friendly persuasion than to enforce lip-service to them through constant suspicion, surveillance and denunciation.